Violence Against Women Act provides for “inclusion, fairness, safety”
In 1994, Congress first passed the Violence Against Women Act. I was among those who heralded this legislation as the first time that the federal government offered a broad view and practical solutions to the issues of violence against women. Contrary to the claim made by Cathy Young in the May 10, 2012 issue [“Critiquing WAVA”], VAWA was crafted with input from a multidisciplinary and diverse group of experts in the fields of domestic violence and sexual assault response, law enforcement, emergency medicine, civil and probate legal issues, education, research, policy development and government. The process was then, and continues to be, evidence-based and collaborative, requiring sophisticated analysis of the research and skilled collaboration and innovation. Those organizations at the local, state and national level who utilize these funds to advance safety for victims and accountability for offenders are required to provide regular financial and programmatic reporting, analysis of their results, and quality care to victims. If, as Young suggests, these funds were used to “advance a divisive and paternalistic form of feminist ideology,” these requirements would never be met.
As a result of the collaborations and initiatives supported by VAWA, Western Massachusetts communities are safer and more aware, with community responses that are coordinated and relevant for victims, while providing avenues for accountability of offenders. Some of the initiatives in Hampshire and Franklin counties that have been supported by VAWA are:
– Outreach and coordination for Latina, African American and immigrant survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.
– Training on first response and investigation of police officers in every local city and town, along with comprehensive protocols in forensics, interviewing and case preparation.
– Legal assistance that promotes safety and prevents economic catastrophe for families that are escaping violence at home.
– Coordinated responses to offenders at high risk to commit homicide against their partners.
– Research, evaluation, data collection that help us understand the high risk for victimization against people with disabilities, elders, immigrants and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender victims.
– Improved systems for protection and safety for victims.
– Training for medical personnel and improved screening and intervention protocols in medical settings.
– Advanced understanding of the impact of domestic violence on children in terms of their development, education, and mental health.
– Coordinated community responses that involve mental health practitioners, substance abuse counselors and trauma specialists.
Much of the critique of VAWA, as articulated by Young, relates not to the actual good that continues to come from its implementation, but to a perception of ideology of local programs and state coalitions. Having worked in the field of domestic violence and sexual violence for more than 25 years, I can say with confidence that her charge that organizations “espouse an ideology that reduces complex issues of violence and abuse to ‘women good, men bad'” could not be farther from the truth. We deal with the complexity and nuances of violence and abuse every day at all levels. We look at the issues from a wide range of perspectives, including psychological, criminal justice, sociological and public health perspectives, while we craft interventions and prevention initiatives based on applied research, best practices, and the voices and experiences of survivors.
VAWA is up for reauthorization, and for the first time in more than 15 years, the basic good that is accomplished through this legislation is being challenged for the sake of partisan political maneuvering. There is nothing Democratic or Republican about efforts that seek to reduce one of the major causes of death and injury to women, children, and men in the U.S. It is my hope that lawmakers will look beyond partisan politics to champion the continued progress accomplished through the Violence Against Women Act.
Marianne Winters, Executive Director
Safe Passage
*
Quabbin Semantics
A “patch cut” is a clear-cut by any other name. Jeff Lacy [Letters, May 31, 2012] puts me in mind of a used car salesman who would sell you an old beater with bad valves with claims that it just needs a little work. Apparently, Lacy has so welded himself to the gradual trashing of the Quabbin watershed that he can’t see the forest for the trees.
While there may be a finer point to the difference between edge by a road and edge by a so-called “successional forest,” readers will note that Lacy failed to address the issue of climate disruption I addressed in my previous letter [May 10, 2012]. As I noted: there exists the “vital importance of standing forests in sequestering carbon in this age of climate change. When you take out acres of forest, not only do you release the stored carbon into the atmosphere, but you also destroy future [and existing] carbon capture capability.”
To support the loss of that existing carbon capture, as Lacy does, could be considered an ecological crime. History will not look fondly upon these clear-cutters and their supporters.
Don Ogden, Producer/Co-host
The Enviro Show, Valley Free Radio
via Internet
*
Advocate Should Investigate Quabbin
I’d like to make a call for the editors to take a direct role on an issue too significant to be relegated to the Letters column. Given the intensity of the debate and the vitriolic tone of many letter writers, I think that the Valley Advocate should dedicate serious investigative reporting time to the matter of forestry practices at Quabbin.
Clearly there is a need for objective and professional journalists to research the matter and to interview abutters, foresters, directors of local land trusts, representatives from the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and those who have opinions and interests on all sides.
The public can benefit more from a dispassionate and balanced review of the facts and history than from partisan repartee which has descended to name-calling and scurrilous accusations.
Stephanie N. Selden
Stony Lane Farm, Petersham
